Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the returned fields (live price, reserves, graduation progress on a 0-100 scale) and the active-only filter. It omits any note on result volume or pagination behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler, and the positive scope is front-loaded before the exclusion. Every clause carries information an agent needs to decide whether to call the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the returned fields and the graduation-progress scale. For a simple two-param read tool this is close to complete; the only gap is the absence of any hint about result-set size or how pagination/limit interacts with sorting.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% — both 'sort' (with its enum and default) and 'limit' (1-200, default 50) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies; there is no compensating detail such as what 'graduating' sorting actually prioritizes.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb (List) plus a precisely scoped resource: active JetForge tokens still on their bonding curve. It also states the inverse scope — graduated tokens trade on Raydium and are not listed — so an agent knows exactly what this tool will and won't surface, and it is unmistakable against siblings like get_quote or prepare_trade.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The exclusion clause ('graduated tokens ... are not listed') gives a clear condition for when this tool is the wrong choice, which is real usage guidance. However, it never names an alternative tool or says when to prefer it over browsing via another path, so it stops short of explicit routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.